Zimmerman trial is ridiculous! Would you rather...

[Just Saying]

In an altercation, would you rather...

On edit: I agree avoiding is the best response but this is a hypothetical about if you must fight. I probably should have made it about it you have to defend your life or which is a bigger threat to life. It irritates me that the defense wants to pretend sidewalk is a weapon akin to a gun.

2 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Have a gun?
	0 (0%)
	Have fists and a sidewalk nearby?
	2 (100%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[G_j]

1. how about

a good pair of running shoes?

[ileus]

2. avoid altercations

[HappyMe]

3. I would avoid an altercation

if at all possible.

If not, I'm going to run like hell and holler my head off. Maybe even run to nearest house and start ringing the bell.

[onehandle]

4. "...my philosophy of self-defense has a lot to do with running as fast as I possibly can."

http://westwing.bewarne.com/charlie.html

[Recursion]

5. Depends. A gun can be a liability

Since biometric safeties are still in the design phase.

[Lurks Often]

6. I'd rather be elsewhere n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

7. Fists and a sidewalk, for the following reasons:

Guns are bulky in close quarters and, in a pinch, can be as much a liability as a boon. Likewise, if you can control the opponent's body, you can control the fight, far more than with a firearm. Finally, if given the option, you have the option of either eliminating your opponent completely -or- crippling him to the point of him ceasing being a threat. Contrary to belief, it's difficult to aim for a limb with a gun.


I don't carry, but I do own quite a few guns. When it comes to self-defense outside the home, give me a sidewalk any day.

[Just Saying]

9. If the other person had a gun

Would you still feel that way?

I think you made some valid points.

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. In a heartbeat.

If a person is within melee range, or within ten to fifteen meters, of an onrushing threat, accuracy degrades on an inversely proportional scale. The closer the threat, the weaker the accuracy. Likewise, if one can obtain prompt medical attention, 95% of firearm wounds are nonfatal, and in my case, I would rely on shock, pain and adrenaline to aid me in removing the immediate threat before considering my well-being. If I had a suspicion that my assailant was, in any way, "Out to get me", I would approach them and attempt to initiate dialogue before moving to incapacitate the right arm (Presumably the dominant arm and the one in which a potential gun would be held, given the nature of guns as right-handed), breaking the limb if possible, followed by a grounding sweep/throw and several swift cracks of the head to the concrete.

Move to inside the threat radius (Melee), remove lethal threat (gun-arm), incapacitate/execute assailant.


To be honest, I don't really fear guns at all. I've had a few pointed at me, and while it's jarring, unless the pointer is aiming to kill for thrill, they likely won't. If they -are- aiming to thrill-kill, I have little to lose by engaging them.


Also, before you call me a gun nut who fantasizes about killing people, I learned this through martial arts -long- before I owned a firearm.

[FSogol]

8. I carry a concealed 4-foot section of sidewalk wherever I go.

[Just Saying]

10. Do you need a permit for that?

Sidewalks don't kill people...

[Xyzse]

12. In an altercation I'd rather not have a gun

It makes it easy for escalation to happen.

People are dumb and short fused. I am sorry to say, but with things like:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-sought-alleged-fatal-florida-road-rage-shooting/story?id=19536857#.Ud2PVU3D-Uk
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/06/13/nj-detective-charged-in-md-fatal-road-rage-shooting-free-on-bond/

Many times they think they are tougher than they really are, which is the problem with such a tool.

So I rather not have weapons in a fight at all. It generally makes the one who has it have a false sense of security, and more prone to provoke confrontation.

A sidewalk is deadly in a fight, but it is an element of the surroundings that both fighters get, so in the end all things are equal in regards to that. If you're in a fight, use your surroundings, with Zimmerman being the "Neighborhood Watch" he would theoretically have the advantage.

In fact, in weight class, training, location and arms, he has all the physical advantages.
Given that, I don't see why they are not also talking about Trayvon was trying to defend himself.

[Just Saying]

13. I worded the poll poorly.

I agree that guns are dangerous and adding them into an altercation escalates the fight. But what I meant was if it was one against the other. I think it's pretty obvious that a sidewalk isn't any match for a gun.

In fact, in weight class, training, location and arms, he has all the physical advantages.
Given that, I don't see why they are not also talking about Trayvon was trying to defend himself.

Couldn't agree more. I happen to believe it was Trayvon who was defending himself.

[Decoy of Fenris]

14. Just stopping by again, Saying.

I'm a bit of a scrapper from time to time during tourneys, and I'll say the following, independent of the Zimmerman case. We know he's a lying sack, but to clear up misconceptions:

"Weight class." The big guys move slower. It's a fact. It's a fact I exploit routinely when sparring. The ability to outmaneuver and evade brawling-level tactics is a massive advantage to a scrap-style, ground-and-pound fighter. Outflank, outmaneuver, wear down and then finish.

"Training." In many cases, training without experience in the field can lead to your training being a liability. Often, you can tell an easy fight by how they position themselves pre-combat. If they settle into a martial art/MMA form, there's a reasonable chance that they've never been in a real fight using that training. It takes martial artists years to master the concept of form; fighting isn't as simple as "Hit them with Karate." Improper use of form and style can, again, be a massive hindrance and leave you open to retaliatory strikes/grapples, especially if your understanding of your trained style is limited to theory and not practical application.

"Location." While I'd normally agree that location plays no small role in combat, two combatants in the same arena are weighed evenly by their surroundings, unless one terrain/location specifically favors one combatant or the other by virtue of the simple presence of the terrain. Hard terrain such as pavement or dirt favor faster fighters (Better traction), while slippery/muddy/sandy terrain favors the heavier fighters, for the most part.

"Arms." No point here: The guy with the gun is normally the better armed, regardless of combat, unless the opposition is exceptionally well-trained.



As an aside, back to the Martin case: If I were to put bets, purely on physical ability, on the two combatants in a straight fight, I'd wager heavily on Martin. Normally, no matter how strong the larger guy is, the faster, swifter, more nimble combatant will generally win.

[Bake]

15. I try to avoid altercations and don't go looking for trouble.

If push comes to shove, I'd prefer to be escorted by my two friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

Bake